Rami, I think you are too enamored with your own ideas and want to put everyone else opinions or philosophy into your own conceptual box where you are more comfortable.

I cannot adopt ideas that are inconsistent with my ideas. Doing so would mean having conflicting ideas. That is evil. Instead, everybody should make sure their worldview is self-consistent.

Now that doesn’t mean shut out all exterior ideas. You have some ideas I’ve never encountered before. So I’m considering them. That means asking questions to help me understand what you mean. And it means criticizing the flaws that I see. If you want me to adopt your views, then address my criticisms. Point out the flaws in my ideas.

GenerousGeorge - 18 November 2012 10:28 AM

By Strawman, I mean you keep trying to substitute a “God” or being for my term “A higher Power of My Own Understanding’.

(Despite my repeated denial of that.)

I note that you didn’t quote me, like I asked you to quote me. You are working from your memory. Your memory is fallible. And this time it failed you.

There was no repitition. I don’t repeat myself. Each time that we went back and forth on that subject, I had a new interpretation about what you meant by *your* words. And each time, you could have clarified it by using simpler language that doesn’t use words like God and higher power, since what you were trying to say had nothing to do with God or higher power. You’re blaming me for your lack of communication skills. Ridiculous!

My latest attempt to understand what you mean was my question: What do people mean by “the God within me”?

“The God inside oneself” .... What does that mean? GK answer ...... I have no idea! I said some report that is their version of a higher power. People in AA report many, many versions of HOP. Perhaps I was not clear on that and that is why you question the various terms that are somewhat synonomous to that.

Maybe it is a psychological trick of some kind that helps people see their problem is soluble. That is what is meant by “higher power (HP) of your own understanding”. (In my case probably misunderstanding) People report endless version of that HP. One thing all in AA agree on is that WILLINGNESS to change is the key to change. How that willingness comes about is by turning a
particular problem over to a “Higher Power”. This seems to trigger an overall personality change in terms of willingness to change.

In regard to your question about hypnotists, I have first hand knowledge (In entertainment venue) of a friend hypnotized on stage who made a complete (very funny) fool of himself while hypnotized. Whether he would have done something “against his will” that was dramatically outside his concept of good and evil, I’m not sure. But, it was quite an eyeopener. I volunteered myself the next act, and felt some inclination to “go along with it”, but in the end my friend who had gone back to his seat, became hypnotized from there and when I started laughing they had him take my place on the stage.

I am fascinated by human behaviour and how it changes. A significant part of this has been my observation of changes in people over many years in the AA program. I am open to any outside opinions.

“The God inside oneself” .... What does that mean? GK answer ...... I have no idea! I said some report that is their version of a higher power. People in AA report many, many versions of HOP. Perhaps I was not clear on that and that is why you question the various terms that are somewhat synonomous to that.

Maybe it is a psychological trick of some kind that helps people see their problem is soluble. That is what is meant by “higher power (HP) of your own understanding”. (In my case probably misunderstanding) People report endless version of that HP. One thing all in AA agree on is that WILLINGNESS to change is the key to change. How that willingness comes about is by turning a
particular problem over to a “Higher Power”. This seems to trigger an overall personality change in terms of willingness to change.

When people believe in something, they think that something is responsible for stuff.

So, some people believe in a higher power and they believe that by tapping into that, they can heal themselves.

Analogously, some people believe that people can make them do things against their will (hypnosis).

In both cases, people are believing in something fake, but the phonemon seems to occur to the person. In the case of hypnosis, the person tricks himself into believing that he’s being controlled.

GenerousGeorge - 18 November 2012 11:17 AM

In regard to your question about hypnotists, I have first hand knowledge (In entertainment venue) of a friend hypnotized on stage who made a complete (very funny) fool of himself while hypnotized. Whether he would have done something “against his will” that was dramatically outside his concept of good and evil, I’m not sure. But, it was quite an eyeopener. I volunteered myself the next act, and felt some inclination to “go along with it”, but in the end my friend who had gone back to his seat, became hypnotized from there and when I started laughing they had him take my place on the stage.

I am fascinated by human behaviour and how it changes. A significant part of this has been my observation of changes in people over many years in the AA program. I am open to any outside opinions.

Your friend wanted to “be hypnotized”. You didn’t. Thats why he “was” and you “weren’t”.

Love is another example. People say that they believe that “love at first sight” is possible. And if they believe it (or want to believe it), then it happens to them. And for people that don’t believe that, it doesn’t happen to them.

These are examples of self-deception. They are self-fulfilling prophecies.

When people believe in something, they think that something is responsible for stuff.

So, some people believe in a higher power and they believe that by tapping into that, they can heal themselves.

Analogously, some people believe that people can make them do things against their will (hypnosis).

In both cases, people are believing in something fake, but the phonemon seems to occur to the person. In the case of hypnosis, the person tricks himself into believing that he’s being controlled.

Hmmmm….. well, I tried to be willing to let myself be hypnotized, I did feel some effect, but I knew I would not be, therefore I could not really be willing.

Love is another example. People say that they believe that “love at first sight” is possible. And if they believe it (or want to believe it), then it happens to them. And for people that don’t believe that, it doesn’t happen to them.

These are examples of self-deception. They are self-fulfilling prophecies.

I wonder if “self fulfilling prophecies” can be used in a positive way. There does not seem to be an effective way to use “reason” to make an alcoholic stop drinking. The physical and psychological characteristics of addiction make that very difficult, if not impossible. For me, for example, there was no amount of reasoning that could persaude me I needed to stop drinking. Even when I reached the point where it was clear to me I was on a downward spiral that would have a very bad ending.

I needed a way to be willing. Seeing other people that had “recovered” and were “happy, joyous and free” without booze was inspiring and I wanted what they had, even though I had a great aversion to religion and Gods. (still do)

However, I joined the group, turned my desire and addiction over and have not had a drink since. (many years later) So. somewhere in that process is a key to people using whatever resource they have in their personal make up to make dramatic change.

Love is another example. People say that they believe that “love at first sight” is possible. And if they believe it (or want to believe it), then it happens to them. And for people that don’t believe that, it doesn’t happen to them.

These are examples of self-deception. They are self-fulfilling prophecies.

I wonder if “self fulfilling prophecies” can be used in a positive way. There does not seem to be an effective way to use “reason” to make an alcoholic stop drinking.

That sounds like you’re saying that no alcoholic has ever quit without AA. There are no stats for that.

GenerousGeorge - 18 November 2012 11:45 AM

The physical and psychological characteristics of addiction make that very difficult, if not impossible.

Definitely possible since you did it.

GenerousGeorge - 18 November 2012 11:45 AM

For me, for example, there was no amount of reasoning that could persaude me I needed to stop drinking. Even when I reached the point where it was clear to me I was on a downward spiral that would have a very bad ending.

You mean that the reasoning that you did do, didn’t suffice.

GenerousGeorge - 18 November 2012 11:45 AM

I needed a way to be willing. Seeing other people that had “recovered” and were “happy, joyous and free” without booze was inspiring and I wanted what they had, even though I had a great aversion to religion and Gods. (still do)

Exactly. So knowing that other people solved their problem, the same problem you had, made you realize that your problem was soluble.

GenerousGeorge - 18 November 2012 11:45 AM

However, I joined the group, turned my desire and addiction over and have not had a drink since. (many years later) So. somewhere in that process is a key to people using whatever resource they have in their personal make up to make dramatic change.

Another thing that helped you was having many people supporting you. They were there to hear your stories and there to help you not go back to drinking. Support groups are good for that.

GenerousGeorge - 18 November 2012 11:45 AM

How that happens is what I am interested in.

Believing that something (or someone, or some being) is responsible is common.

It works in the other direction too. Often people do bad things and they blame their brain chemistry, or their hormones, or their upbringing, etc. These are self-fulfilling prophesies too. If I believe that I am not the cause of my problem, and that the cause is my genes, then I won’t solve my problem since I won’t even try solving it.

Love is another example. People say that they believe that “love at first sight” is possible. And if they believe it (or want to believe it), then it happens to them. And for people that don’t believe that, it doesn’t happen to them.

These are examples of self-deception. They are self-fulfilling prophecies.

I wonder if “self fulfilling prophecies” can be used in a positive way. There does not seem to be an effective way to use “reason” to make an alcoholic stop drinking.

That sounds like you’re saying that no alcoholic has ever quit without AA. There are no stats for that.

Arghh .... Rami .... stop putting words in my mouth. That is not what I said at all. There are certainly people that “get sober” without going to AA. I know a couple. My experience tells me that is not usually the case.

There are not good statistics on that. It is hard to quantify and gather results on what works to get people sober. There have been some fairly recent studies that have developed some more practical criteria. I will try to dig those up and post them. I have a vast amount of experience seeing a broad spectrum of people come into the program and what happens to them over time. I hesitate to tell you what I think the statistical results are because you will immediately cry bias and “limited sample”.

GenerousGeorge - 18 November 2012 11:45 AM

The physical and psychological characteristics of addiction make that very difficult, if not impossible.

Definitely possible since you did it.

I did with the AA program, not through my own, unaided reasoning.

GenerousGeorge - 18 November 2012 11:45 AM

For me, for example, there was no amount of reasoning that could persaude me I needed to stop drinking. Even when I reached the point where it was clear to me I was on a downward spiral that would have a very bad ending.

You mean that the reasoning that you did do, didn’t suffice.

I mean that, no reasoning I did before coming into the program worked. Something changed when I came into AA.

GenerousGeorge - 18 November 2012 11:45 AM

I needed a way to be willing. Seeing other people that had “recovered” and were “happy, joyous and free” without booze was inspiring and I wanted what they had, even though I had a great aversion to religion and Gods. (still do)

Exactly. So knowing that other people solved their problem, the same problem you had, made you realize that your problem was soluble.

That was a significant part of it. I wanted what they had and was willing to listen to their stories about “The way it was, what happened, and how it is now”. I have to tell you there is another, unquantified “X” factor in ny recovery. If reasoning in groups was all that was needed, there would be a larger group of reported sucesses to that effect.

GenerousGeorge - 18 November 2012 11:45 AM

However, I joined the group, turned my desire and addiction over and have not had a drink since. (many years later) So, somewhere in that process is a key to people using whatever resource they have in their personal make up to make dramatic change.

Another thing that helped you was having many people supporting you. They were there to hear your stories and there to help you not go back to drinking. Support groups are good for that

. Yes, but it was more than just that. There was a synergy involved that was not “simple”.

GenerousGeorge - 18 November 2012 11:45 AM

How that happens is what I am interested in.

Believing that something (or someone, or some being) is responsible is common. What is the point of that comment?

It works in the other direction too. Often people do bad things and they blame their brain chemistry, or their hormones, or their upbringing, etc. These are self-fulfilling prophesies too. If I believe that I am not the cause of my problem, and that the cause is my genes, then I won’t solve my problem since I won’t even try solving it.

Willingness and the ability to be honest with yourself are qualities that are encouraged in AA.

That is not what I said at all. There are certainly people that “get sober” without going to AA. I know a couple. My experience tells me that is not usually the case.

Why should “the usual case” matter in this discussion?

GenerousGeorge - 18 November 2012 06:10 PM

There are not good statistics on that. It is hard to quantify and gather results on what works to get people sober. There have been some fairly recent studies that have developed some more practical criteria. I will try to dig those up and post them. I have a vast amount of experience seeing a broad spectrum of people come into the program and what happens to them over time. I hesitate to tell you what I think the statistical results are because you will immediately cry bias and “limited sample”.

You don’t know me (nor my philosophy) well enough to know that.

Or maybe *you* believe that those results are biased?

GenerousGeorge - 18 November 2012 11:45 AM

The physical and psychological characteristics of addiction make that very difficult, if not impossible.

Not exactly. Its the non-objective nature of such a study that makes it impossible.

GenerousGeorge - 18 November 2012 11:45 AM

I needed a way to be willing. Seeing other people that had “recovered” and were “happy, joyous and free” without booze was inspiring and I wanted what they had, even though I had a great aversion to religion and Gods. (still do)

You and they happened to share the same problem. And they solved their problem. And you considered their solution good. So you envyed them. And so you emulated them. I too emulate people that I think are better than me.

GenerousGeorge - 18 November 2012 11:45 AM

Exactly. So knowing that other people solved their problem, the same problem you had, made you realize that your problem was soluble.

That was a significant part of it. I wanted what they had and was willing to listen to their stories about “The way it was, what happened, and how it is now”. I have to tell you there is another, unquantified “X” factor in ny recovery. If reasoning in groups was all that was needed, there would be a larger group of reported sucesses to that effect.

I don’t see how you came to that conclusion. Why do you think so?

Also, they aren’t using reasoning alone. They are using faith. Faith is void of reasoning. Faith is blind optimism. Its horrible. Rational optimism is better. That means having reasons for one’s belief that he can solve his problems.

GenerousGeorge - 18 November 2012 11:45 AM

You said, “Believing that something (or someone, or some being) is responsible is common.” What is the point of that comment?

Most people today shift responsibility a lot.

GenerousGeorge - 18 November 2012 06:10 PM

It works in the other direction too. Often people do bad things and they blame their brain chemistry, or their hormones, or their upbringing, etc. These are self-fulfilling prophesies too. If I believe that I am not the cause of my problem, and that the cause is my genes, then I won’t solve my problem since I won’t even try solving it.

Willingness and the ability to be honest with yourself are qualities that are encouraged in AA.

That idea is important. A person who understands this well will do better at preventing self-deception, rationalizing, responsibility shifting, etc.

That is not what I said at all. There are certainly people that “get sober” without going to AA. I know a couple. My experience tells me that is not usually the case.

Why should “the usual case” matter in this discussion?

The usual case in this instance is the type of case that provides successful reovery for an Alcoholic. What programs/processes work the best and most often.

GenerousGeorge - 18 November 2012 06:10 PM

There are not good statistics on that. It is hard to quantify and gather results on what works to get people sober. There have been some fairly recent studies that have developed some more practical criteria. I will try to dig those up and post them. I have a vast amount of experience seeing a broad spectrum of people come into the program and what happens to them over time. I hesitate to tell you what I think the statistical results are because you will immediately cry bias and “limited sample”.

You don’t know me (nor my philosophy) well enough to know that

.

Or maybe *you* believe that those results are biased?

Most studies are biased by the people who conduct them by what criteria they are using on either side of an issue. The problem with an AA study is defining who has actually given AA a genuine try and what is the definition of success?

GenerousGeorge - 18 November 2012 11:45 AM

I needed a way to be willing. Seeing other people that had “recovered” and were “happy, joyous and free” without booze was inspiring and I wanted what they had, even though I had a great aversion to religion and Gods. (still do)

You and they happened to share the same problem. And they solved their problem. And you considered their solution good. So you envyed them. And so you emulated them. I too emulate people that I think are better than me.

I did not envy the people. I saw that the “process” they all participated in had remarkable results.

GenerousGeorge - 18 November 2012 11:45 AM

Exactly. So knowing that other people solved their problem, the same problem you had, made you realize that your problem was soluble.

That was a significant part of it. I wanted what they had and was willing to listen to their stories about “The way it was, what happened, and how it is now”. I have to tell you there is another, unquantified “X” factor in ny recovery. If reasoning in groups was all that was needed, there would be a larger group of reported sucesses to that effect.

I don’t see how you came to that conclusion. Why do you think so?

I have searched quite extensively for other programs or treatments and see no other significant ones. If you know of some, please let me know.

Also, they aren’t using reasoning alone. They are using faith. Faith is void of reasoning. Faith is blind optimism. Its horrible. Rational optimism is better. That means having reasons for one’s belief that he can solve his problems.

All “faith” is not bad. You seem to have quite a “knee jerk” on that. Faith that there is an invisible superhero in the sky that will answer your every prayer is certainly illogical, even horrible and has no proven results. Faith that a process works, even though you don’t understand exactly why is not unjustified when there are demonstrated extraordinary beneficial results. Some might say the same results can be obtained through logic alone, but I have not seen that to happen often or groups that espouse and practice that.

GenerousGeorge - 18 November 2012 11:45 AM

You said, “Believing that something (or someone, or some being) is responsible is common.” What is the point of that comment?

Most people today shift responsibility a lot.

I don’t disagree, we learn from childhood to do that. “My homework got eaten by the dog” LOL However this is not a matter of shifting blame, it is a matter of using a process to achieve results otherwise unattainable. If you believe similar resulta are obtainable in a different venue, please enlighten me.

GenerousGeorge - 18 November 2012 06:10 PM

It works in the other direction too. Often people do bad things and they blame their brain chemistry, or their hormones, or their upbringing, etc. These are self-fulfilling prophesies too. If I believe that I am not the cause of my problem, and that the cause is my genes, then I won’t solve my problem since I won’t even try solving it.

Willingness and the ability to be honest with yourself are qualities that are encouraged in AA.

That idea is important. A person who understands this well will do better at preventing self-deception, rationalizing, responsibility shifting, etc

Most cults/religions dont encourage the practice of being honest with yourself. That is one reason I disagree with people that maintain that AA is a religion or cult.

Most studies are biased by the people who conduct them by what criteria they are using on either side of an issue. The problem with an AA study is defining who has actually given AA a genuine try and what is the definition of success?

And those are impossible to know, hence such studies are non-objective.

GenerousGeorge - 18 November 2012 11:45 AM

Also, they aren’t using reasoning alone. They are using faith. Faith is void of reasoning. Faith is blind optimism. Its horrible. Rational optimism is better. That means having reasons for one’s belief that he can solve his problems.

All “faith” is not bad. You seem to have quite a “knee jerk” on that. Faith that there is an invisible superhero in the sky that will answer your every prayer is certainly illogical, even horrible and has no proven results. Faith that a process works, even though you don’t understand exactly why is not unjustified when there are demonstrated extraordinary beneficial results. Some might say the same results can be obtained through logic alone, but I have not seen that to happen often or groups that espouse and practice that.

That is not a criticism of the process of reasoning. Its a criticism of the people doing the reasoning. They don’t have sufficient knowledge.

GenerousGeorge - 18 November 2012 11:45 AM

You said, “Believing that something (or someone, or some being) is responsible is common.” What is the point of that comment?

Most people today shift responsibility a lot.

I don’t disagree, we learn from childhood to do that. “My homework got eaten by the dog” LOL However this is not a matter of shifting blame, it is a matter of using a process to achieve results otherwise unattainable. If you believe similar resulta are obtainable in a different venue, please enlighten me.

I don’t understand what you mean. You said something to the effect that AA tells people to give in to a higher power. That is equivalent to a person letting someone hypnotize him. In both cases, the person believes that someone else (or thing) is responsible.

If someone had a habit of some sort, lets say smoking cigarettes, and the person went to a hypnotist, and he did his work, and then the smoker stopped smoking cold turkey, would you say that hypnosis works?

Most studies are biased by the people who conduct them by what criteria they are using on either side of an issue. The problem with an AA study is defining who has actually given AA a genuine try and what is the definition of success?

And those are impossible to know, hence such studies are non-objective.

Actually, not impossible, just quite difficult. There are some new studies and criteria that are interesting that try to quantify these things that I will find and post.

GenerousGeorge - 18 November 2012 11:45 AM

Also, they aren’t using reasoning alone. They are using faith. Faith is void of reasoning. Faith is blind optimism. Its horrible. Rational optimism is better. That means having reasons for one’s belief that he can solve his problems.

All “faith” is not bad. You seem to have quite a “knee jerk” on that. Faith that there is an invisible superhero in the sky that will answer your every prayer is certainly illogical, even horrible and has no proven results. Faith that a process works, even though you don’t understand exactly why is not unjustified when there are demonstrated extraordinary beneficial results. Some might say the same results can be obtained through logic alone, but I have not seen that to happen often or groups that espouse and practice that.

That is not a criticism of the process of reasoning. Its a criticism of the people doing the reasoning. They don’t have sufficient knowledge.

I don’t understand. Are you saying that when the results are good, they dont count if faith is involved? That if the people participating and getting benefit have not used reason as the total and exclusive process to achieve those results, they should abandon that process for one they can reason through, even though the results are less beneficial?

GenerousGeorge - 18 November 2012 11:45 AM

You said, “Believing that something (or someone, or some being) is responsible is common.” What is the point of that comment?

Most people today shift responsibility a lot.

I don’t disagree, we learn from childhood to do that. “My homework got eaten by the dog” LOL However this is not a matter of shifting blame, it is a matter of using a process to achieve results otherwise unattainable. If you believe similar resulta are obtainable in a different venue, please enlighten me.

I don’t understand what you mean. You said something to the effect that AA tells people to give in to a higher power. That is equivalent to a person letting someone hypnotize him. In both cases, the person believes that someone else (or thing) is responsible.

What does “giving in to a higher power mean”? It is different for everyone I suspect, but the results seem to be very similar. For me, it is kind of a process where I end up “swimming with the currrent” as opposed to “swimming upstream”. Giving up a bad habit or turning it over to a process that works is a good thing if it works. I suppose, even if it was hypnosis, that would be okay, except that hypnosis does not usually produce good results with Alcoholics wheras, in my experience, the total AA process does.

The “higher power of your own understanding thing” might just be a psychological trick, (No doubt), but in the context of the 12 steps and the overall process, in my experience it produces significant positive results. That is why I am interested in the process and how the “hypnosis” as you call it, fits in to the overall process.

And those are impossible to know, hence such studies are non-objective.

Actually, not impossible, just quite difficult. There are some new studies and criteria that are interesting that try to quantify these things that I will find and post.

No. It is impossible. Why? Because the experimenter cannot know the thoughts and feelings of the subjects. No two subjects will give the same answer to a question. Also, even if two subjects *did* give the same answer, they will mean different things by those answers. Furthermore, its impossible for the experimenter to know whether or not a subject is lying in his answers.

GenerousGeorge - 18 November 2012 11:45 AM

That is not a criticism of the process of reasoning. Its a criticism of the people doing the reasoning. They don’t have sufficient knowledge.

I don’t understand. Are you saying that when the results are good, they dont count if faith is involved?

No.

GenerousGeorge - 18 November 2012 11:45 AM

That if the people participating and getting benefit have not used reason as the total and exclusive process to achieve those results, they should abandon that process for one they can reason through, even though the results are less beneficial?

No. If a person doesn’t know a better way to solve his problem, then he should use the best way he knows how.

He should also criticize that “solution”. And with sufficient understanding, he will discover that AA is mysticism. Its irrational.

GenerousGeorge - 18 November 2012 11:45 AM

I don’t understand what you mean. You said something to the effect that AA tells people to give in to a higher power. That is equivalent to a person letting someone hypnotize him. In both cases, the person believes that someone else (or thing) is responsible.

What does “giving in to a higher power mean”? It is different for everyone I suspect, but the results seem to be very similar. For me, it is kind of a process where I end up “swimming with the currrent” as opposed to “swimming upstream”. Giving up a bad habit or turning it over to a process that works is a good thing if it works. I suppose, even if it was hypnosis, that would be okay, except that hypnosis does not usually produce good results with Alcoholics wheras, in my experience, the total AA process does.

The “higher power of your own understanding thing” might just be a psychological trick, (No doubt), but in the context of the 12 steps and the overall process, in my experience it produces significant positive results. That is why I am interested in the process and how the “hypnosis” as you call it, fits in to the overall process.

And those are impossible to know, hence such studies are non-objective.

Actually, not impossible, just quite difficult. There are some new studies and criteria that are interesting that try to quantify these things that I will find and post.

No. It is impossible. Why? Because the experimenter cannot know the thoughts and feelings of the subjects. No two subjects will give the same answer to a question. Also, even if two subjects *did* give the same answer, they will mean different things by those answers. Furthermore, its impossible for the experimenter to know whether or not a subject is lying in his answers.

GenerousGeorge - 18 November 2012 11:45 AM

That is not a criticism of the process of reasoning. Its a criticism of the people doing the reasoning. They don’t have sufficient knowledge.

I don’t understand. Are you saying that when the results are good, they dont count if faith is involved?

No.

GenerousGeorge - 18 November 2012 11:45 AM

That if the people participating and getting benefit have not used reason as the total and exclusive process to achieve those results, they should abandon that process for one they can reason through, even though the results are less beneficial?

No. If a person doesn’t know a better way to solve his problem, then he should use the best way he knows how.

He should also criticize that “solution”. And with sufficient understanding, he will discover that AA is mysticism. Its irrational

.

Glad to see you are objective about this. I don’t think you know what AA really is. Have you ever been to a meeting? Do you know anyone who is in the AA program? Why do you just dismiss AA out of hand, because of your aversion to Mysticism? Even if there is an element of mysticism, does that invalidate the whole process?

It appears to me that you just have a “knee jerk” when it comes to anything tainted by what you perceive as mysticism, hypnosis etc. In fact, you dont seem to want AA to work. I predict you will completely disregard my personal experience in AA and the results I have observed in thousands of people.

Just hypothetically, what if AA did work even with an element of mysticism. What if AA worked better than any purely logical method. (it does in my experience) If AA worked much better than the purely logical methods (whatever and wherever they are??) Would you still try to convince those who were no longer drinking that their belief in mysticism was evil and abhorrent and they would be better of drinking until they could solve their problem logically. People like me for instance.

GenerousGeorge - 18 November 2012 11:45 AM

I don’t understand what you mean. You said something to the effect that AA tells people to give in to a higher power. That is equivalent to a person letting someone hypnotize him. In both cases, the person believes that someone else (or thing) is responsible.

What does “giving in to a higher power mean”? It is different for everyone I suspect, but the results seem to be very similar. For me, it is kind of a process where I end up “swimming with the currrent” as opposed to “swimming upstream”. Giving up a bad habit or turning it over to a process that works is a good thing if it works. I suppose, even if it was hypnosis, that would be okay, except that hypnosis does not usually produce good results with Alcoholics wheras, in my experience, the total AA process does.

The “higher power of your own understanding thing” might just be a psychological trick, (No doubt), but in the context of the 12 steps and the overall process, in my experience it produces significant positive results. That is why I am interested in the process and how the “hypnosis” as you call it, fits in to the overall process.

First you say it is impossible to have accurate statistical studies on AA and the next thing you do is quote me statistics.

I don’t know about national or global statistics, however I know my personal experiuence of seeing thousands of new people come into AA and following their progress. My personal experience tells me the success rate is far higher than that.

What do you mean by “swimming upstream”? Are you saying that you were conflicted? (By conflicted I mean having two conflicting ideas.)

NO

What do you mean by “swimming with the current”? Are you saying that you weren’t conflicted anymore?

It is hard to explain. I don’t know, it’s just how I feel about my approach to life with AA and before AA. For now lets call it a psychological trick that has helped me with Alcoholism. Yes, “truth in lending”, I am puzzled why this “Higher Power” thing seems to help, however no other method did. I am a highly logical person with strong will power, but AA is the only thing that works for me.Soooo, I take what I need and leave the rest behind like lots of others. and…............... nobody is trying to coerce me into a further venture into their personal brand of “Mysticism” Not even the Born Again Christians who also happen to be in AA.